4 ms·
To be clear, I am not in the camp of trying to recover objectivity, and generally feel that the attempt is a sin: God is dead, etc. I thought it was an interest
by astazangasta 10y ago
To be clear, I am not in the camp of trying to recover objectivity, and generally feel that the attempt is a sin: God is dead, etc. I thought it was an interesting attempt to find a space where it might exist, though, in the moment of the joining of two minds. Undeniably something happens in the act of conversation, since we know we can speak to each other in a useful way that is not entirely subjective. We must at least be responsible to each other in conversation, and we might call that act of (partially) successful transmission/reception "objectivity".
- rhizome 10y agoI think you're just describing the topic of conversation, which I guess could be called an object with definition(s), but in the context of conversation I don't think it could be said to have inherent objectivity, since definitions themselves are subject to variations of meaning. "Oh, I thought you meant/told me to...!" Further to the "something" that happens in conversation, I think of Gilles Deleuze and his concept of sense-making, or cognition. You may be interested in some of his writings along these lines if this page resonates with you at all (just to save you the google, autopoesis means "self-creation"): https://books.google.com/books?id=rcVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42 https://books.google.com/books?id=rcVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=P...